Hello Matthew,<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 08:53, Matthew Flatt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Thanks for your responses to the MysterX poll. Based on those<br> responses, here's the plan:<br> <br>[...]<br> * Reimplement the COM parts (core and events) as `ffi/com'. The<br> interface of `ffi/com' will not match `mysterx' exactly; a new<br> implementation of `mysterx' will wrap `ffi/com' for non-ActiveX<br> backward compatibility, but porting from `ffi/com' to `mysterx' will<br> be encouraged.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not actually using MysterX, but for what I understood, shouldn't the above sentence read the opposite? </div></div><br></div><div>"... porting from `mysterx' to `ffi/com' (the new implementation) will be encouraged."</div> <div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[]'s</div><div><br></div><div>Rodolfo Carvalho</div>